Saturday, 16 April 2016

Saudi Foreign Minister – what was asked, and what he had answered

When you want to understand an answer, first you need to understand the question. Otherwise the answer will be without context, and will be greatly misunderstood. Take for example, the video below.

Transcript from the video:-

Reporter:Your Excellency, are you aware of the background and details about the issue on the donation to the Prime Minister of Malaysia?

Foreign Minister:We are aware of the donation and it is a genuine donation with nothing expected in return and we are also fully aware that the Attorney General of Malaysia had thoroughly investigated the matter and found no wrongdoing so as far as we are concerned the matter is closed.

Somehow, the mainstream media quoted the Foreign Minister as if he hadadmitted that Saudi Arabia government was the donor of all the RM4.2 billion ‘donation’ into the Prime Minister’s private accounts.

A foreign minister telling a reporter he has some awareness of the issue is somehow turned into an admission that the money came from Saudi Arabia?

Obviously the Saudi minister was just regurgitating what our own Attorney General had said back in January in order to clear Najib Razak of any wrong doing. Thank you Anifah Aman for briefing his counterpart expeditiously.

So it is not surprising to see a couple of ministers and even the Prime Minister’s press secretary jumping on the bandwagon without knowing what the full conversation was all about. Well, they can be forgiven because they are not media savvy people. Plus they are just being loyal and stupid. God forbid if some Oxford graduates had also misinterpreted what had been said. Their imbecilic statements may go viral.

Coming back to the issue at hand, when a reporter asked a stupid question (everyone in the world should know by now about the background and details on the donation issue), the stupidity can only be surpassed by the people who had misconstrued the answer.

But maybe we are the ones who had misunderstood the question and misunderstood the answer. Maybe the Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister did admit his country gave Najib those billions. From the video above probably at some point in his short answer he had confirmed and admitted that the government of Saudi Arabia had donated those billions. After all, English is not an easy language.

To remove any doubt next time, we suggest reporters to ask a more specific question to the Arab ministers. For example:

“Your Excellency, does Saudi Arabia government admit in giving more than one billion dollars straight to Najib Razak’s personal bank accounts whereby some of it went through several obscure and dodgy shell companies not owned by your Government? Mind you, these companies had suspiciously been set up to launder their money and liquidated when their task has been completed. Any comment on that?”

The reporters need to ask this because Najib Razak will surely not answer it himself. Reporters might get arrested for trying to know the truth here in Malaysia. It’s not like he does not know how billions of ringgit made its way into his own accounts. Surely this prime minister is not an idiot who cannot answer how billions got in his account and how he had spent it as he pleased.

A world class beggar getting ‘donation’ from all over, which he then spent on jewellery, handbags, travel, etc, all in the name of UMNO or fighting ISIS. No not ISIS, but Muslim Brotherhood. Or maybe the Jews.

[REMINDER: No anonymous comments will be published. Please use Google Account, OpenID or Name/URL. Pseudonym is accepted. Be respectful. No swearing. Thank you]

In a brief three-sentence in Istanbul quoted by Bernama on April 15 Al-Jubeir said:

“We are aware of donation and it is a genuine donation with nothing expected in return. We are also fully aware that the Attorney-General of Malaysia has thoroughly investigated the matter and found no wrongdoing.

“So, as far as we are concerned, the matter is closed.”

The statement was made to Malaysian reporters and, according to reports, no follow-up questions were asked.

There are three elements in his statement namely it was a donation, it was genuine and the donor did not expect anything in return.

Because the statement was brief and the Malaysia reporters might have been instructed not to ask too many questions or believed that have got what they wanted, we still do not know for sure who the donor was, the exact amount of the donation and whether he had received the amount supposedly returned to him by Mohd Najib.

Also it is hard to accept this latest statement unconditionally because just over two months ago the same person said it was not a donation but an investment.

Either he had made a mistake with his first statement or was lying with his second.

On Mohd Najib’s part, if it was a donation and a genuine one with no string attached, why did he return a large chunk of it?

The BBC last January 27 reported that the donation was authorised from the very top - from Saudi Arabia's late King Abdullah - with funds coming from both his personal finances and state funds.

Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali had, on Jan 26, cleared Najib of any wrongdoing in relation to investigations into the SRC International Sdn Bhd and the RM2.6-billion alleged to have been deposited into the prime minister’s bank accounts.

Apandi said the investigations revealed that the amount deposited was RM2.08 billion, and it was a personal donation from the Saudi royal family in 2013, of which RM2.03 billion was returned to the contributor the same year.

At a glance, Al-Jubeir’s about-turn appears favourable to Mohd Najib. He was not lying about the donation. At least that is what Al-Jubeir's Istanbul statement implies. But upon closer analysis it does little to vindicate the Prime Minister.

Why did he return most of the donation from a fellow Muslim ruler no sooner after receiving it? Was it not an affront to the donor?

He could have kept the money and channel it to worthy religious causes at home and abroad.

With so many Muslims in Malaysia and the region living in poverty, the Arab donation would have come handy. There are so much welfare activities that could have been carried out with the money.

With our country sheltering tens of thousands Muslim refugees from Burma and elsewhere, the Arab donation was Allah’s blessing.

But for a very curious reason Mohd Najib returned the donation. Why did he return the money?

The case might be closed as far as Al-Jebeir is concerned, but the legality of the Prime Minister putting the money in his private account is still very much an issue.

On top of it, the April 7 report of the Public Account Committee (PAC) had raised many questions about his direct and indirect involvement in the business affairs of 1MDB.

The Saudi might have helped him to get off the hook with the new version of the donation story, but many more jurisdictions are investigating his conduct and the conduct of his associates in particular Jho Low.

They are exchanging notes, freezing accounts and interviewing people and companies implicated in the 1MDB money trail.

So it's not yet time for Mohd Najib and his supporters to celebrate and demand apologies whom the entire human race.

URGENT : Let me advise the PM, his cronies, his handlers, his brain dead advisors etc. Guys, you better get a grab on things. Better get a good lawyer to vet ALL your public statements about this entire 1MDB scandal and all its related issues. From now on whatever you say may, can and will be used against you in a Court of law.

We can see things breaking down and going bonkers. Before this, to minimise damage you guys handled the situation by :

1. firing Ghani the AG in the nick of time

2. firing Muhyiddin the DPM

3. transferring out MACC officers

4. transferring out Police investigators

5. taking action against AG's personnel

6. jailing Khairudin for making all those police reports (which is now having its effect)

7. blocking off S'wak Report and declaring it a crime to refer to S'wal Report

These things worked because it was inside the country. You thought that you had contained the fallout. Wrong.

Anyway, the story has changed now. Foreign countries and foreign investigators are involved. You cannot fire them, transfer them, jail them, block them off, declare them illegal, issue a warrant of arrest or deport them from the country.

Instead your not very clever boys are speaking up on your behalf and making total idiots of themselves. You really need to handle the situation carefully. Dont allow all these boys to simply shoot statements off to the media. They make you look like crooks.

You need real professional help. Nothing less than a Wall Street lawfirm with strong PR skills to advise you on how to address the media, who should be allowed to say what to the public etc. May I reccommend Bottom, Feeder, Knight, Flight & Associates - its a Jewish law firm from New York who are well known for handling "leaving the building soon" type of situations.

I read the following from Arul Kanda and that Perak lawyer fellow and really got a shock.

So lets get this straight. What Arul is saying is that someone committed fraud - the victim was 1MDB. The bossman at 1MDB was none other than Najib. He was the sole signatory, the Advisor and under Section 117 or something the completely-in-charge-guy.

So someone committed fraud. As a result billions were siphoned out.

Then (from what the Swiss AG has been saying) a portion of this fraudulent proceeds ended up as an investment into Red Granite - US$155 million. Red Granite is a movie company owned by Najib's stepson !! And we are supposed to believe this.

Najib, Red Granite and 1MDB etc did not know all this for all these years until Arul Kanda discovered this today 13th April 2016.

They are all innocent. Stepfather who sits over company suffers fraud and stepson benefits from the fraud (to the tune of US$155 million). Yes I think the inmates at the asylum will buy that - before their medication.

OK there was fraud. The money was supposed to go to Aabar Investments. It went to the wrong Aabar (in BVI).

I say Arul, you mean all these years no one from the real Aabar called and asked 'Dey Arul Kanda, where is that money? We have not received it yet".

Its like this bro. 1MDB sent off BILLIONS of Ringgit. Sent to whom? The Aabar guys lah. The real Aabar guys.

But the money was fraudulently siphoned off somewhere else - to the fake Aabar Virgin Islands.

So didnt the real Aabar call and ask 'Hey 1MDB where are my billions? I have not received them yet'.

Didnt your auditors ask, ""Where is the proof of payment for all these billions?"

In simple Malay the word for this is "resit". In English it is called "receipt'.

Thats what the auditors always ask. For everu single payment please show your receipt. Otherwise they will not accept the payment for audit purposes.

So when you sent off those billions to the fake Aabar BVI, did the fake Aabar BVI issue any receipts? Did your auditors accept and verify those receipts for your audits?

Is that why you had to fire your earlier auditors? All this does not tally bro.

So only now, years later, and after the Swiss AG kicks up a fuss you say 'It was all a fraud'. Or is that qualified with a "maybe"?

Now here is the lawyer guy :

Lawyer: PM’s signature on 1MDB documents a formality, doesn’t mean he decides or knows all

April 13, 2016

Najib lawyer Hafarizam said signing of documents do not necessarily mean PM has knowledge of or makes the decisions on 1MDB matters.

Then why did Bakke Salleh resign as Chairman of 1MDB? Bakke resigned when 1MDB could not get that money back. The money had gone to the wrong person. Bakke had asked that the money be returned. The money was not returned. So Bakke resigned.

So who was in charge of 1MDB then? Surely it could not have been Bakke Salleh? And Bakke was the Chairman.

So extending Hafarizam's logic (or the lack thereof) when the PM signs treaties with foreign countries, does he have to know what he is signing? Or is it also just sign buta?

I mean is there another Sect 117 etc somewhere in our Constitution that says

'Any treaty entered into by the Federation of Malaysiamust be signed blindly by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister need not know what he is signing. He can sign buta'.

or words to that effect lah.

Isnt signing treaties just a formality as well, followed by dinner and cultural performances?Similarly when Najib signs documents as Finance Minister does he have to know what he is signing or is it also sign buta? I think it is more auta. This is getting too crazy. Even the Hollywood scriptwriters cannot make this up.

cities tracking

feed

feed...

the weather is....

My Blog Widgets

chatting.....

Labels

disclaimer

DISCLAIMER:

kzso carries the personal views of the blog author. readers are cautioned not to consider the contents written in this blog and all its ancillary documents as a legal or contracting policy advice in any way. indeed, the information stated in this blog should not be relied upon as the ultimate reference of the truth. since kzsois not responsible for its contents and the comments from the public, it therefore assumes no liability. kzsoalso disavows knowledge or culpability of any such acts or claims on such acts in any way related to the views and opinions expressed in this blog.whilst every care is taken in the preparation of the information contain in this blog, no warranty, express or implied is given by kzso as to the completeness and accuracy of the information given and kzso is not responsible for any errors or omissions which may occur.

In no circumstance will kzsobe liable or responsible for any damages whatsoever, including without limitation, special, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of or related to the use or reliance of the information contained in it, whether by action in contract or tort or otherwise howsoever.

Some and/or any of the articles or postage is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the view of kzso.